1) More should share this sentiment that while we are mighty,
firepower does not translate into victory. Again reference US
involvement in Korea and Vietnam. .
Mighty and firepower do not EQUATE victory... but lack of might
will invite war, and lack of firepower could cost you dearly in
terms of soldiers lives.
in war... one do not simply seeks to win... but to win with the
minimal loses, that's where firepower is suppose to help achieve.
and even if we should loose... the heavier firepower on our side
would ensure that we exact a heavy price from the enemy.
2) Like I said, the MLRS is more of a terror weapon. (Another
point to note is that the MLRS - though inaccurate - outranges all
our howitzers (I think). .
all weapons are terror weapon, even your bayonet is a terror
weapon, only different is the level of terror induced.
range of weapon is not everything, whats the point of being able to
shoot beyond the moon but miss the moon by a billion miles?
3) I am concerned that we keep comparing ourselves to the US and
modelling our armed forces after them. Americans have mostly acted
stupidly and with much arrogance in all their post WW2 wars.
Americans are tough fighters but they really give the impression of
a non-thinking army. .
that is stereotypical thinking... in war, there is no such thing
as acting stupid and still win a war.... only that on hindsight..
people would always question about the "possibilities" of
alternatives....
4) Maybe the USMC platoon they faced was a typical cockup USMC
platoon also. .
that would not be a fair assessment in my opinion, it belittles
not only the USMC, but their opponents as well.... in my opinion,
both sides give their best, but ultimately, there has to be a
winner in any competition... but that does not automatcally implies
that the looser is a bunch of cockups.
US is the most powerful and most well-armed force in the world
today without question. But let's not confuse this with the actual
quality of their fighting men. .
wrong... the overall combat capabilities of a unit is not merely
measured by the number of push-ups each soldier can do... but
rather the complete overall aspect of the unit including trainning,
leadership and without a doubt... in the heralding modern age, the
importance of technology and equipment cannot be understated and
could very well prove to be the key determinants in any
outcome.
A historian writing about the Korean War noted that the US make
horribly stupid mistakes at the beginning of every conflict as if
it had never fought in a war before. But US has the capacity to
sustain these setbacks and eventually use their overwhelming
strength and power to simply outlast the enemy if they can't
outfight them. .
on hindsight... there will also be 1001 better ways, but then
non of the 1001 ways guarantees anything nor victory as the enemy
would also have 1001 ways to counter your 1001 better moves.
We would do better to continue to model ourselves closely after
the Israelis than the Americans. British troops always gave a
sterling performance wherever they go. Even the Australians gave
outstanding account of themselves in Vietnam. The PLA in Korea had
respect for the Australians for fighting abilities and the Turks
for sheer bravery. We shouldn't hold the American soldiers in too
high regard.
we should continue to learn from the best, but we must find path
our own roads.
there is nothing wrong in holding americans in high regards... they
fought and they won against adverseries that most other nation
would not dare challenge.[/quote]
